Letters to the Editor: No, this isn't the end of the state's Ballona Wetlands restoration

Los Angeles Times Opinion
·2 min read
1
MARINA DEL REY, CA - MAY 22, 2023 - The Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve in Marina Del Rey on May 22, 2023. In a recent development, a judge has reversed approvals for a state restoration plan to bulldoze and reshape vast areas of the sensitive habitat Ballona Wetlands. Environmentalists with Protect Ballona Wetlands were pleased with the Superior Court rulings finding the State of California had failed to properly protect wildlife species in its plan to dramatically reshape the nature preserve. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
A portion of the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve in Marina del Rey is seen on May 22. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: As she has done for 15 years, litigant Marcia Hanscom of the group Defend Ballona Wetlands attempts to turn a public relations lemon into lemonade. ("Judge orders halt to Ballona Wetlands restoration project," May 30)

Although she claims she hoped mostly for a reprieve from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's elegant wetlands restoration plan, her true stated desire was to stop the restoration altogether. She has clearly lost that war.

Among the 26 assertions in the Defend Ballona Wetlands filing, the judge agreed with only two — a .076 batting average. Among the biggest missed swings were the group's pleas not to remove fill dirt from Marina del Rey construction 70 years ago and instead to create malaria-hosting freshwater wetlands that never existed at Ballona.

The judge rejected both notions.

We supporters look forward to helping Fish and Wildlife "perfect" its environmental impact report and move forward with the Ballona restoration. It will be an ecological jewel for the enjoyment of generations to come.

David W. Kay, Playa Vista

The writer managed the San Dieguito Wetlands restoration for Southern California Edison from 2007-12.

..

To the editor: Many of us in the wetlands community have watched the push and pull between those who favor the current proposal for "restoration" and those who have dug deep into the science.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant's ruling provides the right leadership. As Hanscom put it:

"It gives the mosaic of habitats at the ecological reserve a reprieve from facing utter destruction and upheaval by state officials who — shockingly — favor sending bulldozers and other heavy equipment into these fragile wetlands."

We who live here and have watched the controversy for years believe that a gentler reconstruction plan than the one proposed by the state is better for the wetlands and its inhabitants.

As for the "restoration" plan, if you look hard enough at it you will see that oil and gas interests are at the basis of that view, not the wildlife we hope to restore.

Wendy Zacuto, Playa Vista

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.